Skip to main content

Institutional Challenges of the "Gun Buyback" Program


The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Upon deadly mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, many Democratic presidential candidates are endorsing and promoting a "mandatory gun buyback" program and questioning the application of the Second Amendment in today's world. This program would require all owners of AR-15s and AK-47s to "sell them back" to the government. As can be expected from a bill of this nature, it has received many criticisms from both parties in the United States and the constitutionality of this idea has greatly been in question.

Candidate Kamala Harris said that when she is elected to be the president, within the first 100 days, she will sign this program into law and citizens will be forced to hand over their guns. If the bill is not on her desk in 100 days, she will take executive action (The Hill). The institutional problem with this statement is that the president cannot act unilaterally on any policy issue. Any of these presidential candidates that are making these promises and that expect to take immediate action are not going to pleased when they see that it will not be that simple. In order for this to pass and become a law, the bill must be first passed through both the House and the Senate. Under a divided Congress, it is very difficult for one party to pass their own legislation. In 2010, Congress experienced this phenomenon particularly with the "Obamacare" or Affordable Care Act legislation. It was a highly partisan issue, passing the House with a vote of 220-215 (AJS, Chapter 1). The fate of this bill, institutionally, will depend on the 2020 elections and who controls the House and Senate. The gun buyback legislation can be expected to be similar to the Affordable Care Act in the fact that it will be highly debated and controversial.
(data from "Cities With the Most Gun Violence")
Whether or not it passes, is entirely dependent on the Senators/House Members that are voting. In this case, whether or not the Congress member votes as a delegate or a trustee is largely impactful on the outcome of this bill (AJS, Chapter 3). For example, the representative from Chicago would most likely vote for this bill because of the high level of gun homicide in his city. The representative from Alabama, however, would probably not vote for this bill because their city does not experience near as much gun violence. In each of these examples, it would be reasonable to think that these representatives would be acting most in line with their constituents which would mean that they are acting as delegates. When we find a middle ground or representatives feel strongly one way or the other, is most likely when the representatives begin to act as trustees and choose what they think is best for their constituents. 

This bill in particular can be expected to be highly controversial, and already is. The fundamental principles of not only government structure, but also the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution are being called into question. 


Stebbins, S. "Cities With the Most Gun Violence." 24/7 Wall Street, 4 Aug. 2019, https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/08/04/cities-with-the-most-gun-violence/.

Pavlich, K. "Pavlich: Candidates pushing the gun 'buyback' lie." The Hill, 3 Sept. 2019, https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/459819-pavlich-candidates-pushing-the-gun-buyback-lie. 

Comments

  1. Bridget MurphySeptember 20, 2019 at 11:32 AM

    I really enjoy constitutional law and think your topic is super interesting! Concerning unilateral action, I think we have seen a lot of presidents in the last century expand the role of the executive branch. Though executive orders are not as strong as laws created by a legislative body and can be overturned more easily, I think they can have quite a lot of significance (good or bad). The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order under Lincoln and Roosevelt signed an executive order during World War II to place Japanese-Americans in internment camps. When Mitch McConnell said in a National Journal interview in October 2010 that the single most important thing he and GOP leadership wanted to achieve was making Obama a one-term president, that left Obama with little room to try and implement his agenda through Congress.
    While I haven’t decided quite how I feel about a gun-buyback program, I can understand the frustration that comes with gun violence in the U.S. and the desire to take action when Congress hasn’t. Even though approximately 89% of the public says they support universal background checks, including 84% of Republicans (August 2019 NPR article “Americans Largely Support…”), the executive and legislative branches are still struggling to solidify gun legislation. As you point out nicely, this issue is incredibly controversial due to the Second Amendment and its strength within the Constitution. I don’t believe that executive orders should be issued lightly, but when it feels like Congress is in major gridlock and is so unresponsive to the majority of the country, then I can see how some presidents feel compelled to take the next step and issue executive orders. I think you do a really nice job highlighting how difficult this process is and the controversial nature of this topic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. LauraSeptember 25, 2019 at 8:16 AM

    Kaitlyn, I found this post to be very informative. I personally had not heard about this type of gun control policy. You did a great job highlighting how this policy faces a lot of challenges in a divided government. I completely agree with you. Even if right leaning congress members appeared to show the slightest bit of support or indifference, it is likely that interest groups like the NRA would immediately jump in and try to sway the vote in their favor.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ballot Initiative in Colorado

    One of the most distinctive features of the legislative process in Colorado is the prevalence of the ballot initiative. In the election this November, voters had the opportunity to approve their own laws. One of these laws included a proposition that would legalize sports betting.     This is not the first time that voters have had the ability to make hugely influential decisions. Voters have voted to legalize marijuana. In Colorado, they even approve tax increases because of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This means that, unlike in other states, Colorado voters have legislative power of their own.      One of these most recent initiatives involved sports betting. Colorado would legalize sports betting, but sports betting would be taxed. This revenue would be used to fund plans to address Colorado's water problem. However, according to the Colorado Sun, the money from sports betting will not generate any money to address these water iss...
Post a Comment
Read more

TABOR & Proposition CC: Providing Context to Colorado's Tax Problem

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 Dec. 2019 Blog Post 3 (TABOR and Proposition CC) Colorado's tax system is very unique in comparison to pretty much every other state in the U.S. Arguably the biggest aspect of the tax system that is unique is the amendment to the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR or the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. This amendment which was drafted into law in 1992, has many implications for Colorado's state and local governments. One of the main implications is that TABOR requires the state and local governments of Colorado to acquire voter approval before any tax increase can be implemented. Some other more less known implications are detailed by Denver Post author Anna Staver, she explains that TABOR: “ Limits how many tax dollars governments can keep … It’s called the TABOR cap, anything a government collects above the cap gets returned as a TABOR tax refund … (TABOR) Limits when lawmakers can ask voters to raise taxe...
1 comment
Read more

The Flawed American Electoral System

A free and fair election is one that is inclusive to all of the population. A democratic state requires active citizen participation to ensure equal representation. The framers of the constitution originally wanted the United States government to only be governed by educated white men. It was not until 1920 that the 19th amendment was passed that allowed white females to vote in America. Then it was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed African-Americans the right to vote freely. There were many amendments and reforms throughout history that has changed our election system. Different changes to state election process will ensure an equitable election system. This is a highly debated legislative issue that goes back and forth for the past decade and into the 2020 election. It is crucial for such a powerful and free country to protect its proud democratic values.  There are still issues with the American election systems. There are a lot of holes in represe...
1 comment
Read more